DesignVerdict
← Back to search
Contested design 002057620-0006

Invalidity appeal · Board of Appeal · 2020-12-07

R1472/2019-3

Contested design: 002057620-0006

CDRAppellant: holder

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

The appeal is dismissed and the design holder must bear the invalidity applicant's fees and costs.

Show verbatim operative text

1. Dismisses the appeal; 2. Orders the design holder to bear the fees and costs incurred by the invalidity applicant.

CostsHolder ordered to pay costs

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

WIDMANN S.r.l.

Italy (IT)

Viale dell'Industria 3/C, 20020 Busto Garolfo (MI), Italy

Represented by

Beiten Burkhardt

Holder · RCD owner

Worldwide Dynasty Inc.

United States (US)

20630 Superior Street, Chatsworth California 91311, United States of America

Prior art cited (1)

Web disclosureD1

glasses with moustache pendant

randommization.com / trashed-ideas.net 'Black Handlebar Mustache Sunglasses' · randommization.com and trashed-ideas.net · disclosed 2011-09-17

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 3(a)Article 5Article 6(1)Article 7(1)Article 70(1)

Argument summary

  • The design holder argued that the relevant Internet evidence was unreliable or qualified as its own grace-period disclosure, and that the costume-mask design differed from the cited fashion accessory products.
  • The invalidity applicant argued that prior design D1 was clearly published online before the priority date and that the contested RCD reproduced its essential arbitrary features.
  • The Board started from D1 rather than D7 because D1 showed the chain clearly, rejected the Article 7(2) self-disclosure argument, and accepted the Internet printouts as sufficient proof of disclosure.
  • Comparing the frontal features, the Board found the same overall impression and dismissed the appeal, leaving the RCD invalid.

Deciding panel

  • ChairTh. M. Margellos
  • RapporteurC. Negro
  • MemberE. Fink
  • RegistrarH. Dijkema

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
R0181/2025-32025-05-27Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0827/2024-32025-03-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1336/2024-32025-03-03Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R0797/2024-32025-01-16Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1123/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1125/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1124/2021-32024-12-10Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5
R1015/2024-32024-11-07Decision confirmedArt 25(1)(b)5